Prenda’s motion to disqualify Judge Otis Wright has been denied

The apoplectic and misguided Prenda’s motion to disqualify Judge Otis Wright has been denied today by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.

Anyone, who is familiar with the “Coopergate” — a damning accusation that Prenda Law is engaged in fraud, forgery, and identity theft — has no illusion why Brett Gibbs came up with this vexatious motion on the New Year’s Eve. It is clear that Gibbs has desperately attempted to delay the inevitable — the necessity to answer questions about the real owners of AF Holdings and Ingenuinty 13 — under penalty of perjury — as it was ordered by the judge, whom our lying little swindler attempted to remove from the case.

From the order:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Disqualification is without merit. Plaintiff alleges no facts to suggest that Judge Wright is biased or prejudiced against it. Plaintiff’s argument boils down its disagreement with the merits of Judge Wright’s discovery orders.


Here, Judge Wright’s conduct simply does not demonstrate any pervasive bias against Plaintiff or other copyright holders of pornographic or erotic material. At most, Plaintiff demonstrates that Judge Wright is concerned with the potential for discovery abuse.


The game is on. I have mixed feelings: sensing the pain of Prenda’s victims, I want this blain on the judicial body to burst as soon as possible. On the other hand, as a curious person, I am impatiently waiting for the next Prenda’s move: the experience shows that there is no limit to Gibbs’s creative douchebaggery. Wash your hands, ladies and gentlemen, in preparation to the next epic palmface.

A brief history of Prenda Law, by Morgan Pietz

Yesterday (on 1/14/2013) defense attorney Morgan Pietz filed an opposition to Gibbs’s frivolous disqualification request. This opposition has an interesting attachment (embedded below) — a declaration that tells the story of deception and fraud: a colorful brief history of Prenda Law. I commend Mr. Pietz for this thorough job: while many episodes of crookery and abuse are missing (for example, a farcical “informal discovery” campaign or Guava/Arte de Oaxaca fraud), all the major milestones were grasped with precision. It is difficult to say if Pietz’s opposition played a critical role in Judge Fitzgerald’s decision — maybe not: Gibbs himself made enough effort to communicate the fraudulent nature of his lawsuits to judges. Nonetheless, Morgan did a huge favor to anyone fighting Prenda — both lawyers and pro se parties — by providing a concise reference, a must have attachment to motions and declarations, especially in cases where judges are not familiar with the Prenda gang and the contents of its bag of tricks.


Visit Pietz Law Firm’s website to read the exhibits referred in this declaration.


wordpress counter


31 responses to ‘Prenda’s motion to disqualify Judge Otis Wright has been denied

  1. You know, I know it isn’t the case, but sometimes I get the feeling this is a giant case of Prenda attempting to rope-a-dope everyone, especially with bittorrent bull making an appearance lately.

    I doubt they’re smart enough to pull something like that off, but something is nagging me about this for some reason.

    • If I was observing Prenda & bittorentbull for a month or so, I would maybe have the same feeling, but knowing Steele and his drunken rants for almost 2 years, no: this guy is full of it. Knowing his narcissism, I’m convinced that he wouldn’t pull a serious strategic trick for such a long time. No way.

    • Agree with SJD. The BTDrunk (Steele) is more hot air then any true strategy. I would not call him ignorant; sneaky and foolish at best. The believe that if they continue to file repeated last-minute motions and crazy claims, that people will tire and some courts will grant their requests. They keep adapting their methods and then will expose them and document it all. Here is a recent example of Prenda trying to hide their attempt to obtain hundreds of ISP subscriber information in a single named defendant case (Thanks Rob!) –

      DTD 🙂

  2. So what’s going to be the play here? Everything Gibbs kicks up gets shot down, obviously. A brain-addled monkey can see that he’s getting nowhere. Let’s just assume then that nothing goes his way, so … what? … things start looking bad, he dismisses the case and it all goes away, right?
    I mean, he’s the prosecution – the attacking entity, the driving force behind the case. All he has to do is kill the engine, and it goes up in a puff of smoke. Then he files another dozen cases elsewhere.

    At what point can somebody actually take it to them instead of playing a masterful round of defense? Force them to execute a case to its inevitablly broken conclusion? Get them stuck in a case they can’t just withdraw from, like a chinese finger trap? We saw people get aggressive against USCG (Dunlap Grubb & Weaver) early on, with Shirokov counter-suing for fraud & extortion. Who is going to put the hammer down on John Steele’s roadside horror show and hopefully push some accountability on them?

    • Prenda relentlessly takes advantage of certain attributes of the federal courts:

      1. Federal judges are very, very busy and they can’t police their own orders. If a judge says, “Serve the ISPs with a copy of this order along with your subpoena,” and Prenda “forgets” to do so, the court won’t follow up, and possibly neither will defendants’ attorneys (this would require the added hassle and expense of subpoenaing the records of the ISP to find out what was really served on them).

      2. Federal judges hate sanctioning attorneys, especially if the case is dismissed. Your case was dismissed, so why are you here seeking sanctions? This enables Prenda, when it is caught in some misbehavior, to simply dismiss the case, or to let it stay dismissed, and repeat the behavior in some other case. Likewise, defense attorneys chalk up a dismissal as a win, their clients are happy with the outcome, and the defense attorney has little incentive to move for sanctions that probably won’t be granted.

      • if your case is dismissed your lawyer can move for costs as the prevailing party according to the copyright act (as far as i know…….IANAL)

        • As a defendant who is dismissed or severed you probably have no “costs” unless you took a deposition or something.

          §505 of the Copyright Act says the court has “discretion” to award a “prevailing party” “full costs” and “a reasonable attorney’s fee” as “part of the costs,” but don’t hold your breath waiting for a discretionary award of attorney fees. If you weren’t served and didn’t answer the complaint, it’s not even clear that you’re a “prevailing party.”

          Consult an attorney.

  3. Noticed that on 1-25 Gibbs quietly dismissed three AFH lawsuits which had been pending before Judge Wright (12-cv-5709, 5725 and 6636). Too early to tell if this is the beginning of an all out jettison of all scam suits before Judge Wright with Pietz onto the scam, or something else. By next week we’ll know for sure.

  4. Well, it appears that the Judge Wright dismissed most of the AFH cases. And Gibbs himself seems to have dismissed the case that the judge had granted Pietz’ discovery regarding Alan Cooper

Leave a Reply to sharp as a marble Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s